HAHAHA ok la.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Pride of the Chinese Nation and all Chinese in the World
- Thread starter Froggy
- Start date
HAHAHA ok la.
[/URL]
Wonder if old Phillip kept his mouth shut…..on a visit to china years ago he spoke to a bunch of uk exchange students and told them…"don't stay here too long…you'll get slitty eyed"
This is the common bane of the ordinary citizen in every country, what I call "The right to gripe."
Years ago during uni student days, I was talking to some dorm mates, one of which was an ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Cadet/Corp) student and the subject drifted to military rivalry between USSR and USA - in which this ROTC student gave his view - the US and USSR will not fight each other, but their governments only heighten the risk from the "enemy" to divert attention so THEY CAN FUCK THEIR OWN citizens! This was the view of a man in uniform!
Cheers!
Years ago during uni student days, I was talking to some dorm mates, one of which was an ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Cadet/Corp) student and the subject drifted to military rivalry between USSR and USA - in which this ROTC student gave his view - the US and USSR will not fight each other, but their governments only heighten the risk from the "enemy" to divert attention so THEY CAN FUCK THEIR OWN citizens! This was the view of a man in uniform!
Cheers!
A well-balanced article on the rise of China and Britain's role in it.
OCT 19, 2015 @ 12:23 PM
A Radical Role Reversal -- Britain As China's Gateway To Europe
Jean-Pierre Lehmann ,
CONTRIBUTOR
Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, and his wife Peng Liyuan, arrive at Heathrow
Airport in west London on Oct. 19, for a four-day state visit.
(TOBY MELVILLE/AFP/Getty Images)
On the occasion of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s official visit to Britain this week, it is important to remember that when the Chinese speak of their past “era of humiliation,” 1839 to 1949, it was Britain that started and perpetuated it for several decades. In light of its own multiple abuses of human rights in China, it would be a serious mistake for anyone in Britain to lecture Xi (or any Chinese) on human rights; instead, in light of the past, Britain and China should aim to forge a new constructive relationship for the 21st century.
A Recapitulation
For much of recorded history, China was the world’s wealthiest nation. As recently as two centuries ago, it corresponded to 33% of global GDP. By 1950, its share had plummeted to 3.3%. This was the result of foreign and civil wars, imperialist exploitation, which in turn exacerbated a breakdown in governance. China became a “failed state.” Britain wrote a good deal of that narrative.
The first industrial revolution in the late 18th century occurred in Britain, not in China. Given China’s image (Marco Polo, etc) of great wealth and splendor, as well as its big population, British traders looked at the Chinese market with drooling envy – illustrated by the slogan: “if every Chinaman would add an inch of material to his shirttail, the mills of Lancashire could be kept busy for generations.”
Opening salvoes by British troops in China’s era of humiliation
In 1793, as flag sought to accompany trade, the first British envoy, Lord Macartney, was sent to engage China in trade negotiations. China, however, was closed, inward looking, autarkic, and contemptuous of “foreign devils.” While the British delegation were forced to “kowtow” to the Chinese court – taken from the Chinese word kētóu, literally to “knock head” (on the ground) or prostration – Beijing refused British demands on trade. Confrontation loomed. The British discovered a strong Chinese demand for opium – and the world’s best opium was grown and cultivated in the British colony of Bengal.
I have on several occasions on this blog strongly recommended the reading of the Bengali novelist Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis Trilogy for the remarkable narrative of the activities, actors and ambience leading to the first Opium War (1839-1842). I hope this advice is being heeded!
Following the war, Hong Kong was made a colony, providing Britain’s “gateway to China.” It was ruled for 155 years, interrupted only by the Japanese occupation from Dec. 25, 1941 to Aug. 30, 1945, until Jun. 30, 1997 when it was “returned” to Chinese sovereignty.
After the first, there ensued a second Opium War (1856-1860), in which British and Indian forces were joined by the French – whose casus belliwas the beheading of a French missionary, Father Auguste Chapdelaine, who had infringed Chinese laws by entering forbidden territory (he was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2000). Not only were Chinese soldiers and civilians brutally killed, but the invaders ransacked, pillaged and burnt to the ground the magnificent Summer Palace in Beijing: an act of hideous cultural vandalism.
Prior to the outbreak of the Opium War Canton’s Commissioner Lin Zexu wrote his “Letter of Advice to Queen Victoria”, pleading that she prohibit the opium trade. In the letter he makes the crucial point that as the sale of opium is prohibited in Britain, why impose it on China? Further, he appeals to her better moral judgment:
“Suppose there were people from another country who carried opium for sale to England and seduced your people into buying and smoking it; certainly your honorable ruler would deeply hate it and be bitterly aroused. We have heard heretofore that your honorable ruler is kind and benevolent. Naturally you would not wish to give unto others what you yourself do not want.”
It is not known whether Queen Victoria ever read the letter, but in any case she did not reply. Britain never had to experience the forced imposition of drugs from a foreign power, nor having invading Chinese troops marching down The Mall, nor was Buckingham Palace pillaged and burnt, as was the Summer Palace.
In order to avoid meddlesome Chinese laws, the victorious British imposed “extra-territoriality” on China, whereby their citizens could not be judged by Chinese courts, but by their own consular courts, which also applied to all Chinese accused of committing crimes against or alleged victims of crimes by Britons – a system adopted by all other Western powers and Japan.
Patti Waldmeir has recently written an excellent article, entitled “China looks back in anger at British justice,” which well describes the “injustice” and legal discrimination to which the Chinese were subjected on their own territory. Unlike India, Britain never colonized China (apart from Hong Kong), mainly because it did not have to: It could achieve its economic ends through informal imperialism without the costs of formal colonial administration. In Shanghai and other cities where there was a sizeable Western community, clubs, bars, restaurants, parks, leisure centers, were opened up from which Chinese were barred – except of course as servants. The Chinese were frequently made the butt of British racist jokes.
Following China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese war in 1895, the Western powers exacted more concessions from the Chinese government in the form of spheres of influence: Chunks of territory that were theoretically part of China but over which a given foreign power had exclusive economic rights. The British had extended their rule from the island of Hong Kong to include the peninsula of Kowloon in 1860 and then acquired the New Territories in 1898. In 1900, Britain participated in the brutal suppression of the Boxer Rebellion. Between 1903 and 1905, Britain, with the extensive use of Indian troops, invaded Tibet. With the development of colonies, establishment of plantations and exploitation of mines throughout the world there arose great demand for the supply of Chinese indentured labor, known as “coolies,” with which Britain was significantly involved.
All this should show quite categorically, emphatically and conclusively that Britain simply does not have the moral high ground from which it can lecture, let alone hector, the Chinese on human rights, as some have argued it should. First, it should recognize past crimes and express deepest apologies.
Towards a New 21st Century Britain-China Relationship
CCTV News announcing Britain joining AIIB as founding member
In spite of the multiple past transgressions and humiliations against the Chinese by Britain, there is no sign today that although China has regained strength, it is out to wreak revenge. But the scars of past humiliations are there and the wounds could reopen and fester. Essentially China is looking for its place in the world and for sustainable governance. As Europeans should know from our own extremely turbulent and often violent past this is not easy.
It is clear that the 21st century will be in good part determined by the impact and implications of China’s re-emergence as a great global power. From 33% of global GDP before the first Opium War, plummeting to 3.3% a century later, today China has re-risen to 15%. China has vast global interests extending across all continents. With initiatives such as the New Silk Road (OBOR, One-Belt-One-Road) the process will continue. But in its development, China faces not only external challenges, but also domestic ones: social, demographic, cultural, spiritual, economic,financial, technological, environmental and political. Should China achieve its “peaceful rise,” it would be the first great power in history ever to have done so. The implications for the world today and for future generations are huge. For the West the objective should be to engage with China cooperatively in achieving that end, and emphatically not to seek to contain China or through humiliation ostracize it from the global community.
Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Truman, famously remarked that while “Great Britain has lost an empire, it has not yet found a role.” A role it could aspire to would be to serve as China’s gateway to Europe – financially, but also culturally, socially, scientifically, intellectually and politically.
Britain took an important step in that direction when it ignored Washington’s objections and became a founding member of the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). As Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne commented during his recent trip to China, Britain and China should “stick together and make a golden decade for both our countries.”
Britain’s advantages to being China’s gateway to Europe (and possibly to the West generally) include not only its financial services and expertise, but also its strong academic credentials and achievements. Already many Chinese students attend British schools and universities. Given the comparative strength of U.K. institutions of learning in Chinese studies, there is significant scope for academic collaboration and cross-fertilization.
Forging this new relationship will not necessarily be easy. There are great differences between the two countries, politically and socially, as well as economically, not to mention bitter legacies of the past. China can be prickly, as was made evident by the public exhibition of the Magna Carta recently in Beijing. But this potential role stands out as a great opportunity that Britain is well placed for and therefore should seize. There is good reason to believe that engaging China in this manner will not only atone for some of the wrongs committed by Britain against China in the past, but serve far more positively in the improvement of Chinese governance and human rights than would hypocritical lecturing and hectoring. In this sense, Britain could play a critically constructive role in fashioning a 21st century that would relinquish to past history the “era of humiliation” and contribute to building a dynamic, prosperous and peaceful 21st century founded on respect and cooperation between China and Europe.
OCT 19, 2015 @ 12:23 PM
A Radical Role Reversal -- Britain As China's Gateway To Europe
Jean-Pierre Lehmann ,
CONTRIBUTOR
Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, and his wife Peng Liyuan, arrive at Heathrow
Airport in west London on Oct. 19, for a four-day state visit.
(TOBY MELVILLE/AFP/Getty Images)
On the occasion of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s official visit to Britain this week, it is important to remember that when the Chinese speak of their past “era of humiliation,” 1839 to 1949, it was Britain that started and perpetuated it for several decades. In light of its own multiple abuses of human rights in China, it would be a serious mistake for anyone in Britain to lecture Xi (or any Chinese) on human rights; instead, in light of the past, Britain and China should aim to forge a new constructive relationship for the 21st century.
A Recapitulation
For much of recorded history, China was the world’s wealthiest nation. As recently as two centuries ago, it corresponded to 33% of global GDP. By 1950, its share had plummeted to 3.3%. This was the result of foreign and civil wars, imperialist exploitation, which in turn exacerbated a breakdown in governance. China became a “failed state.” Britain wrote a good deal of that narrative.
The first industrial revolution in the late 18th century occurred in Britain, not in China. Given China’s image (Marco Polo, etc) of great wealth and splendor, as well as its big population, British traders looked at the Chinese market with drooling envy – illustrated by the slogan: “if every Chinaman would add an inch of material to his shirttail, the mills of Lancashire could be kept busy for generations.”
In 1793, as flag sought to accompany trade, the first British envoy, Lord Macartney, was sent to engage China in trade negotiations. China, however, was closed, inward looking, autarkic, and contemptuous of “foreign devils.” While the British delegation were forced to “kowtow” to the Chinese court – taken from the Chinese word kētóu, literally to “knock head” (on the ground) or prostration – Beijing refused British demands on trade. Confrontation loomed. The British discovered a strong Chinese demand for opium – and the world’s best opium was grown and cultivated in the British colony of Bengal.
I have on several occasions on this blog strongly recommended the reading of the Bengali novelist Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis Trilogy for the remarkable narrative of the activities, actors and ambience leading to the first Opium War (1839-1842). I hope this advice is being heeded!
Following the war, Hong Kong was made a colony, providing Britain’s “gateway to China.” It was ruled for 155 years, interrupted only by the Japanese occupation from Dec. 25, 1941 to Aug. 30, 1945, until Jun. 30, 1997 when it was “returned” to Chinese sovereignty.
After the first, there ensued a second Opium War (1856-1860), in which British and Indian forces were joined by the French – whose casus belliwas the beheading of a French missionary, Father Auguste Chapdelaine, who had infringed Chinese laws by entering forbidden territory (he was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2000). Not only were Chinese soldiers and civilians brutally killed, but the invaders ransacked, pillaged and burnt to the ground the magnificent Summer Palace in Beijing: an act of hideous cultural vandalism.
Prior to the outbreak of the Opium War Canton’s Commissioner Lin Zexu wrote his “Letter of Advice to Queen Victoria”, pleading that she prohibit the opium trade. In the letter he makes the crucial point that as the sale of opium is prohibited in Britain, why impose it on China? Further, he appeals to her better moral judgment:
“Suppose there were people from another country who carried opium for sale to England and seduced your people into buying and smoking it; certainly your honorable ruler would deeply hate it and be bitterly aroused. We have heard heretofore that your honorable ruler is kind and benevolent. Naturally you would not wish to give unto others what you yourself do not want.”
It is not known whether Queen Victoria ever read the letter, but in any case she did not reply. Britain never had to experience the forced imposition of drugs from a foreign power, nor having invading Chinese troops marching down The Mall, nor was Buckingham Palace pillaged and burnt, as was the Summer Palace.
In order to avoid meddlesome Chinese laws, the victorious British imposed “extra-territoriality” on China, whereby their citizens could not be judged by Chinese courts, but by their own consular courts, which also applied to all Chinese accused of committing crimes against or alleged victims of crimes by Britons – a system adopted by all other Western powers and Japan.
Patti Waldmeir has recently written an excellent article, entitled “China looks back in anger at British justice,” which well describes the “injustice” and legal discrimination to which the Chinese were subjected on their own territory. Unlike India, Britain never colonized China (apart from Hong Kong), mainly because it did not have to: It could achieve its economic ends through informal imperialism without the costs of formal colonial administration. In Shanghai and other cities where there was a sizeable Western community, clubs, bars, restaurants, parks, leisure centers, were opened up from which Chinese were barred – except of course as servants. The Chinese were frequently made the butt of British racist jokes.
Following China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese war in 1895, the Western powers exacted more concessions from the Chinese government in the form of spheres of influence: Chunks of territory that were theoretically part of China but over which a given foreign power had exclusive economic rights. The British had extended their rule from the island of Hong Kong to include the peninsula of Kowloon in 1860 and then acquired the New Territories in 1898. In 1900, Britain participated in the brutal suppression of the Boxer Rebellion. Between 1903 and 1905, Britain, with the extensive use of Indian troops, invaded Tibet. With the development of colonies, establishment of plantations and exploitation of mines throughout the world there arose great demand for the supply of Chinese indentured labor, known as “coolies,” with which Britain was significantly involved.
All this should show quite categorically, emphatically and conclusively that Britain simply does not have the moral high ground from which it can lecture, let alone hector, the Chinese on human rights, as some have argued it should. First, it should recognize past crimes and express deepest apologies.
Towards a New 21st Century Britain-China Relationship
In spite of the multiple past transgressions and humiliations against the Chinese by Britain, there is no sign today that although China has regained strength, it is out to wreak revenge. But the scars of past humiliations are there and the wounds could reopen and fester. Essentially China is looking for its place in the world and for sustainable governance. As Europeans should know from our own extremely turbulent and often violent past this is not easy.
It is clear that the 21st century will be in good part determined by the impact and implications of China’s re-emergence as a great global power. From 33% of global GDP before the first Opium War, plummeting to 3.3% a century later, today China has re-risen to 15%. China has vast global interests extending across all continents. With initiatives such as the New Silk Road (OBOR, One-Belt-One-Road) the process will continue. But in its development, China faces not only external challenges, but also domestic ones: social, demographic, cultural, spiritual, economic,financial, technological, environmental and political. Should China achieve its “peaceful rise,” it would be the first great power in history ever to have done so. The implications for the world today and for future generations are huge. For the West the objective should be to engage with China cooperatively in achieving that end, and emphatically not to seek to contain China or through humiliation ostracize it from the global community.
Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Truman, famously remarked that while “Great Britain has lost an empire, it has not yet found a role.” A role it could aspire to would be to serve as China’s gateway to Europe – financially, but also culturally, socially, scientifically, intellectually and politically.
Britain took an important step in that direction when it ignored Washington’s objections and became a founding member of the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). As Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne commented during his recent trip to China, Britain and China should “stick together and make a golden decade for both our countries.”
Britain’s advantages to being China’s gateway to Europe (and possibly to the West generally) include not only its financial services and expertise, but also its strong academic credentials and achievements. Already many Chinese students attend British schools and universities. Given the comparative strength of U.K. institutions of learning in Chinese studies, there is significant scope for academic collaboration and cross-fertilization.
Forging this new relationship will not necessarily be easy. There are great differences between the two countries, politically and socially, as well as economically, not to mention bitter legacies of the past. China can be prickly, as was made evident by the public exhibition of the Magna Carta recently in Beijing. But this potential role stands out as a great opportunity that Britain is well placed for and therefore should seize. There is good reason to believe that engaging China in this manner will not only atone for some of the wrongs committed by Britain against China in the past, but serve far more positively in the improvement of Chinese governance and human rights than would hypocritical lecturing and hectoring. In this sense, Britain could play a critically constructive role in fashioning a 21st century that would relinquish to past history the “era of humiliation” and contribute to building a dynamic, prosperous and peaceful 21st century founded on respect and cooperation between China and Europe.
bro,
China was a great nation, the Qing Dynasty, before fucking British Empire Pommie industrial revolution development bullshit in 1760. This fucking bankrupted British Empire bastards destroyed China with opium trafficking at China door step to financed their bankrupted industrial revolution development. Fucking industrial revolution from boiling water steam engine don't work and fucking British Empire need more drug money to finance their coal engine development and they targeted China for drug money.
This fucking British must be hang and dealt with today by the Chinese. Chinese loss 150 years of development of industrial revolution to be a developed nation. The fucking white bastard targeted wealthy China with population 300 million people for drug money.
Just ask one simple question of drug consumption? Will you sell drugs to poor countries or wealthy countries are targeted for drug trade?
What fucking democracy country are the white evil pommies bragged they are today? The White Bastard British Empire were thieves 大狗贼 in the past. a Shameful past that they wanted to hid and erased this history thinking it did not exist?
Is Xi ready to talk about the British Empire opium drug trade with China today? Perhaps later wait for something to happen to make theses white bastards come to term of the evil past against Chinese.
http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm
China would be like Japan today in the 1900s as one of the top economy and powerful nation. China might even would even lead the war in WW2 with Japan and bombed USA, Europe and British bastards if China was a developed industrial revolution nation. Japan can resist British opium trade at Japan door step because Japan was a small nation and revenue fro Japan opium trade is small compare to China. 300 million people in China are good target for drug trade to make easy drug money to finance and fund any kind of shits industrial development products that you want?
Fuck the fucking British bastards for making China a poor nation for 150 years 1750-1950. Your children and grand children must stand up to the British bastards to apologize to British Subjects mainly Chinese for drugging them when they were government of Singapore.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om4.htm
China was a great nation, the Qing Dynasty, before fucking British Empire Pommie industrial revolution development bullshit in 1760. This fucking bankrupted British Empire bastards destroyed China with opium trafficking at China door step to financed their bankrupted industrial revolution development. Fucking industrial revolution from boiling water steam engine don't work and fucking British Empire need more drug money to finance their coal engine development and they targeted China for drug money.
This fucking British must be hang and dealt with today by the Chinese. Chinese loss 150 years of development of industrial revolution to be a developed nation. The fucking white bastard targeted wealthy China with population 300 million people for drug money.
Just ask one simple question of drug consumption? Will you sell drugs to poor countries or wealthy countries are targeted for drug trade?
What fucking democracy country are the white evil pommies bragged they are today? The White Bastard British Empire were thieves 大狗贼 in the past. a Shameful past that they wanted to hid and erased this history thinking it did not exist?
Is Xi ready to talk about the British Empire opium drug trade with China today? Perhaps later wait for something to happen to make theses white bastards come to term of the evil past against Chinese.
http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm
China would be like Japan today in the 1900s as one of the top economy and powerful nation. China might even would even lead the war in WW2 with Japan and bombed USA, Europe and British bastards if China was a developed industrial revolution nation. Japan can resist British opium trade at Japan door step because Japan was a small nation and revenue fro Japan opium trade is small compare to China. 300 million people in China are good target for drug trade to make easy drug money to finance and fund any kind of shits industrial development products that you want?
Fuck the fucking British bastards for making China a poor nation for 150 years 1750-1950. Your children and grand children must stand up to the British bastards to apologize to British Subjects mainly Chinese for drugging them when they were government of Singapore.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om4.htm
The photos speak for itself
Agree. See above article by Jean Pierre Lehmann. Also, China is the only great power to achieve a peaceful rise in the history of the world, according to Jean Pierre Lehmann. Every global power before it had risen on the backs of bloodshed and war and violent conquest.
China's unprecedented quest for a peaceful rise
Jean-Pierre Lehmann says with no precedent to follow, China's quest for a peaceful rise to global power status is understandably challenging, for itself as well as other 'responsible stakeholders'
Jean-Pierre Lehmann
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 02 July, 2014, 6:20pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 03 July, 2014, 3:28am
The future of humanity very much depends on how China
will behave as it rises to become a great global power.
China is the first new great global power to emerge in over a century. It is receiving a great deal of unsolicited advice in the process, notably then US deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick's 2005 admonition to Beijing that it should be a "responsible stakeholder". (Note: that was two years after the invasion of Iraq!) It was logical, therefore, that the Chinese should ask how the preceding emerging great powers got there. One result of the inquiries was a brilliant 2006 CCTV series, The Rise of the Great Powers.
The series begins with Portugal in the 15th century, the first great global seaborne power with an empire stretching from Brazil, across the Atlantic, to both West and East Africa, through to the Indian Ocean with an outpost in Goa and thence to the Western Pacific in Macau. Following Portugal, the series describes the rise of the next eight great powers: Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and the United States.
One major conclusion is that not a single one of the nine could have been described as a "responsible stakeholder" during their rise to global power: in every case, conquest, destruction, enslavement, executions, looting and the like were the order of the day.
The rise of Zoellick's own country, the US, entailed slavery, the genocide of native American Indians, wars and territorial acquisitions (notably from Mexico), the control of neighbouring countries in the Caribbean through the expulsion of other powers, the imposition of the Monroe Doctrine declaring Latin America a US sphere of influence, culminating in the Spanish-American war whereby Washington acquired Puerto Rico (as well as Guam and the Philippines) and Spain was expelled from Cuba.
In his compelling book, Asia's Cauldron: the South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific, Robert Kaplan draws an intriguing parallel between US perspectives on the Caribbean in relation to its national security and China's on the South China Sea.
Arguably, the most relevant chapter of the CCTV series is that on the UK. It was Britain that woke China from its slumber and forced it, screaming and kicking, into the modern age. Imperial China, which just before the outbreak of the first opium war corresponded to over 30 per cent of global gross domestic product, was almost certainly unsustainable. The system was obsolete and violent peasant risings had been raging for decades. But it is the manner in which Britain behaved that remains for China and Britain - and for the rest of the planet - a deep moral quandary.
As the totally illicit opium trade caused economic and social ravages, the Chinese pleaded with Britain to be a "responsible stakeholder". In an impassioned letter addressed to Queen Victoria just prior to the outbreak of hostilities, commissioner Lin Zexu appealed to Her Majesty's better moral self to intervene so that the heinous trade be brought to an end. Commissioner Lin pointed to the flagrant double standards (a recurrent theme among risen Western great powers) in noting: "I have heard that the smoking of opium is very strictly forbidden by your country; that is because the harm caused by opium is clearly understood. Since it is not permitted to do harm to your own country, then even less should you let it be passed on to the harm of other countries - how much less to China!"
Queen Victoria never replied to the letter, except in the form of gunships in the first opium war, followed by a second offensive from 1856 to 1860, in which the French joined the British, culminating with the looting of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing - somewhat comparable to the Chinese looting the British Museum and the Louvre.
If the Portuguese seaborne empire is the first chapter in the rise of the great powers, the opium war is the first chapter in China's century of humiliation. By the year of liberation (1949), its share of GDP had plummeted to 4 per cent, while in the process there were incessant foreign military invasions, as well as the moral injury of the treaty ports, the coolie trade and other forms of humiliation. Though China, unlike India, was not colonised by a single imperial power, in the words of Sun Yat-sen, it was a "poly-colony" with multiple countries helping themselves to bits and pieces of Chinese territory in what were called "spheres of influence".
In looking back over the past 500 years, it is clear that the narrative of the peaceful rise of a great power has never been written. Every single rising power from Portugal to the US has been bellicose, brutal and at times barbaric. It was after they had caused disorder that they sought to impose order - their order. If China wants a model of "responsible stakeholder", the fact is that it does not exist.
The term "China's peaceful rise to great power status" was coined by Chinese thought leader Zheng Bijian in 2005. The future of humanity very much depends on whether, as it rises to become a great global power, China will behave with the same ruthless cynicism and cause as much misery and mayhem as its nine predecessors, or whether it will break the pattern and tear asunder the great-power-rising paradigm by rising peacefully.
It's a tough challenge; especially, I repeat, as there is no precedent, no guidebook one can take off the shelf, no historical mentor one can turn to. Whether China ultimately succeeds or fails will of course greatly depend on China, but it will also depend on the attitudes and acts of the existing and erstwhile great powers. Western sermons are not helpful. To construct a better and more peaceful world, a collective constructive approach is quintessential. As is a degree of humility on the part of the Western powers (and Japan). They should recognise that they did not rise peacefully and indeed, as they rose, China was abused. This might go some way in avoiding a Chinese syndrome of revenge.
A first concrete step in that direction might be for Queen Elizabeth, before she leaves the throne, to apologise to China on behalf of her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, for her rudeness in never having properly replied to Lin Zexu's letter. A small act of this nature could have a huge impact.
Jean-Pierre Lehmann is emeritus professor of international political economy at IMD, Switzerland, founder of The Evian Group, and visiting professor at the University of Hong Kong and NIIT University in Neemrana, Rajasthan
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Peace process
For all its human rights abuses against China and its climb to imperial status on the backs of the opium trade and Chinese coolies, Britain owes much more to China today than the other way round. Yet China is showing its magnanimity in not indulging in a political tit-for-tat, even inviting Britain to be a founding member of the AIIB.
China looks back in anger at British justice
Patti Waldmeir – Shanghai
While never a full-blown colony, ‘foreign devil’ forces did rule chunks of vital cities
China views the west with a barely disguised chip on its shoulder. And not without reason.
One of those reasons stands behind a locked gate on a trendy lane in Rockbund, Shanghai’s art deco district. The British Supreme Court for China and Japan is an unassuming two-storey colonial building from which British judges handed down some of the worst indignities of what China calls its “century of humiliation”, from the mid-19th century until the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
While the Middle Kingdom was never a full-blown foreign colony, “foreign devil” forces did rule chunks of vital port cities such as Shanghai, where many streets are still lined with plane trees and European villas. Old resentments die hard, especially in a culture with 5,000 years of history (and, it seems, 5,000 years of anger to go with it).
So the legacy of western colonialism lives on in the memories of mainlanders and in the British court, symbol of a century of extraterritorial foreign justice in China.
Douglas Clark, a Hong Kong barrister, has written what he calls a “living history” of that court, and its American counterpart, complete with period cartoons, sepia photos and salacious judicial details. From love spats to interracial warfare, Clark’s three-volume tome, Gunboat Justice: British and American Courts in China and Japan (1842-1943), chronicles one of the saddest chapters in Sino-western relations: the bit where foreigners set up courts that sometimes let their citizens get away, literally, with murder.
Under treaties China signed in the 19th century, most foreign nationals were exempt from Chinese laws. These extraterritorial courts stepped in whenever they committed crimes against each other, or locals. He chronicles the case of a Malay seaman who murdered his Chinese wife, an opium-addicted prostitute who pawned all his clothes. And that of the Indian foreman at a British shipyard, who killed a Chinese colleague after the latter “broke wind” and committed an unspecified “revolting act” over their meal. There is even a margin trading case arising from an early 20th century “rubber bubble” on the Shanghai stock exchange.
These contemporary court reports seem to have been precursors of Judge Judy, reprinted in local papers for entertainment value. “The century of humiliation is not just propaganda. We foreigners gloss over it, but foreigners lived completely immune from Chinese law,” Clark says as he takes me on a walking tour of extraterritorial justice in Shanghai. “Every single day (it) reminded Chinese people they were not sovereign in their own land.”
The tour includes the British court, followed by one of the city’s most picturesque colonial landmarks, the customs house on the Huangpu River. It is here that Clark reminds me that two of the leading revenue-raising officials in China during the extraterritorial period were British: Sir Robert Hart was inspector general of Chinese customs for nearly 50 years, from 1863 onwards; and Sir Richard Dane monitored the Chinese collection of salt tax and its remittance to foreign creditors in the early 20th century.
Chinese who wanted justice against foreigners during that period had to argue in a court that used not only foreign law but also a foreign language and foreign customs (such as the wearing of wigs in the British court). The testimony of Chinese witnesses was sometimes discounted on the grounds they weren’t Christians, and defendants were often let off lightly for injuring or even killing local people — on the grounds that they were worth less than foreign ones.
This is the kind of thing, says Clark, that “forms the cornerstone of how many Chinese, and particularly the Communist party, see the world”. He notes that “foreigners — to this day — are seen as trying to split and weaken China”.
It might be worth recalling this history next time we are minded to lecture Beijing about legal reform, or for that matter about the chip on its shoulder. The west may have forgotten all about what happened in those courtrooms. But China has 5,000 years of collective memory, remember?
[email protected]
China looks back in anger at British justice
While never a full-blown colony, ‘foreign devil’ forces did rule chunks of vital cities
China views the west with a barely disguised chip on its shoulder. And not without reason.
One of those reasons stands behind a locked gate on a trendy lane in Rockbund, Shanghai’s art deco district. The British Supreme Court for China and Japan is an unassuming two-storey colonial building from which British judges handed down some of the worst indignities of what China calls its “century of humiliation”, from the mid-19th century until the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
While the Middle Kingdom was never a full-blown foreign colony, “foreign devil” forces did rule chunks of vital port cities such as Shanghai, where many streets are still lined with plane trees and European villas. Old resentments die hard, especially in a culture with 5,000 years of history (and, it seems, 5,000 years of anger to go with it).
So the legacy of western colonialism lives on in the memories of mainlanders and in the British court, symbol of a century of extraterritorial foreign justice in China.
Douglas Clark, a Hong Kong barrister, has written what he calls a “living history” of that court, and its American counterpart, complete with period cartoons, sepia photos and salacious judicial details. From love spats to interracial warfare, Clark’s three-volume tome, Gunboat Justice: British and American Courts in China and Japan (1842-1943), chronicles one of the saddest chapters in Sino-western relations: the bit where foreigners set up courts that sometimes let their citizens get away, literally, with murder.
Under treaties China signed in the 19th century, most foreign nationals were exempt from Chinese laws. These extraterritorial courts stepped in whenever they committed crimes against each other, or locals. He chronicles the case of a Malay seaman who murdered his Chinese wife, an opium-addicted prostitute who pawned all his clothes. And that of the Indian foreman at a British shipyard, who killed a Chinese colleague after the latter “broke wind” and committed an unspecified “revolting act” over their meal. There is even a margin trading case arising from an early 20th century “rubber bubble” on the Shanghai stock exchange.
These contemporary court reports seem to have been precursors of Judge Judy, reprinted in local papers for entertainment value. “The century of humiliation is not just propaganda. We foreigners gloss over it, but foreigners lived completely immune from Chinese law,” Clark says as he takes me on a walking tour of extraterritorial justice in Shanghai. “Every single day (it) reminded Chinese people they were not sovereign in their own land.”
The tour includes the British court, followed by one of the city’s most picturesque colonial landmarks, the customs house on the Huangpu River. It is here that Clark reminds me that two of the leading revenue-raising officials in China during the extraterritorial period were British: Sir Robert Hart was inspector general of Chinese customs for nearly 50 years, from 1863 onwards; and Sir Richard Dane monitored the Chinese collection of salt tax and its remittance to foreign creditors in the early 20th century.
Chinese who wanted justice against foreigners during that period had to argue in a court that used not only foreign law but also a foreign language and foreign customs (such as the wearing of wigs in the British court). The testimony of Chinese witnesses was sometimes discounted on the grounds they weren’t Christians, and defendants were often let off lightly for injuring or even killing local people — on the grounds that they were worth less than foreign ones.
This is the kind of thing, says Clark, that “forms the cornerstone of how many Chinese, and particularly the Communist party, see the world”. He notes that “foreigners — to this day — are seen as trying to split and weaken China”.
It might be worth recalling this history next time we are minded to lecture Beijing about legal reform, or for that matter about the chip on its shoulder. The west may have forgotten all about what happened in those courtrooms. But China has 5,000 years of collective memory, remember?
[email protected]
It was All about finding money for their industrialize revolution development which require enormous amount of money to finance and funding their research and trial and error product development. What you see tody of new product development require massive money is the same situation back in their British Empire time. These bastards English targeted China for drug money, what else?
fuck their industrial revolution things which set China back to poor nation for 150 years.
Do you really need so much money for a small nation? Why want so much drug money for? Something must be happening in the fucking British Empire Britain and target China for drug money, 2000% profit.
fuck their industrial revolution things which set China back to poor nation for 150 years.
Do you really need so much money for a small nation? Why want so much drug money for? Something must be happening in the fucking British Empire Britain and target China for drug money, 2000% profit.
For all its human rights abuses against China and its climb to imperial status on the backs of the opium trade and Chinese coolies, Britain owes much more to China today than the other way round. Yet China is showing its magnanimity in not indulging in a political tit-for-tat, even inviting Britain to be a founding member of the AIIB.
China looks back in anger at British justice
Patti Waldmeir – Shanghai
While never a full-blown colony, ‘foreign devil’ forces did rule chunks of vital cities
China views the west with a barely disguised chip on its shoulder. And not without reason.
One of those reasons stands behind a locked gate on a trendy lane in Rockbund, Shanghai’s art deco district. The British Supreme Court for China and Japan is an unassuming two-storey colonial building from which British judges handed down some of the worst indignities of what China calls its “century of humiliation”, from the mid-19th century until the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
While the Middle Kingdom was never a full-blown foreign colony, “foreign devil” forces did rule chunks of vital port cities such as Shanghai, where many streets are still lined with plane trees and European villas. Old resentments die hard, especially in a culture with 5,000 years of history (and, it seems, 5,000 years of anger to go with it).
So the legacy of western colonialism lives on in the memories of mainlanders and in the British court, symbol of a century of extraterritorial foreign justice in China.
Douglas Clark, a Hong Kong barrister, has written what he calls a “living history” of that court, and its American counterpart, complete with period cartoons, sepia photos and salacious judicial details. From love spats to interracial warfare, Clark’s three-volume tome, Gunboat Justice: British and American Courts in China and Japan (1842-1943), chronicles one of the saddest chapters in Sino-western relations: the bit where foreigners set up courts that sometimes let their citizens get away, literally, with murder.
Under treaties China signed in the 19th century, most foreign nationals were exempt from Chinese laws. These extraterritorial courts stepped in whenever they committed crimes against each other, or locals. He chronicles the case of a Malay seaman who murdered his Chinese wife, an opium-addicted prostitute who pawned all his clothes. And that of the Indian foreman at a British shipyard, who killed a Chinese colleague after the latter “broke wind” and committed an unspecified “revolting act” over their meal. There is even a margin trading case arising from an early 20th century “rubber bubble” on the Shanghai stock exchange.
These contemporary court reports seem to have been precursors of Judge Judy, reprinted in local papers for entertainment value. “The century of humiliation is not just propaganda. We foreigners gloss over it, but foreigners lived completely immune from Chinese law,” Clark says as he takes me on a walking tour of extraterritorial justice in Shanghai. “Every single day (it) reminded Chinese people they were not sovereign in their own land.”
The tour includes the British court, followed by one of the city’s most picturesque colonial landmarks, the customs house on the Huangpu River. It is here that Clark reminds me that two of the leading revenue-raising officials in China during the extraterritorial period were British: Sir Robert Hart was inspector general of Chinese customs for nearly 50 years, from 1863 onwards; and Sir Richard Dane monitored the Chinese collection of salt tax and its remittance to foreign creditors in the early 20th century.
Chinese who wanted justice against foreigners during that period had to argue in a court that used not only foreign law but also a foreign language and foreign customs (such as the wearing of wigs in the British court). The testimony of Chinese witnesses was sometimes discounted on the grounds they weren’t Christians, and defendants were often let off lightly for injuring or even killing local people — on the grounds that they were worth less than foreign ones.
This is the kind of thing, says Clark, that “forms the cornerstone of how many Chinese, and particularly the Communist party, see the world”. He notes that “foreigners — to this day — are seen as trying to split and weaken China”.
It might be worth recalling this history next time we are minded to lecture Beijing about legal reform, or for that matter about the chip on its shoulder. The west may have forgotten all about what happened in those courtrooms. But China has 5,000 years of collective memory, remember?
[email protected]
I an tell you why. The bastard English changed their history and wiped out this shameful part of their English history in their library sources and forbid their people to speak about.
This bastards English even use Bible, God, to established their presence in poor nations and in their name of their God and Jesus they have rights to kill, destroy, for slave trades in poor nations.
It was the industrial revolution the creates slave trades. If Qing dynasty was to use the fucking Pommies industrial products China would have to turn to salve trade too.
It was the First Emperor of China Shin that eradicted slave trade in China long ago. But to use evil Pommies products is bring back slave trades in China, and be like them? No way.
QUOTE=yellowarse;2322554]For all its human rights abuses against China and its climb to imperial status on the backs of the opium trade and Chinese coolies, Britain owes much more to China today than the other way round. Yet China is showing its magnanimity in not indulging in a political tit-for-tat, even inviting Britain to be a founding member of the AIIB.
This bastards English even use Bible, God, to established their presence in poor nations and in their name of their God and Jesus they have rights to kill, destroy, for slave trades in poor nations.
It was the industrial revolution the creates slave trades. If Qing dynasty was to use the fucking Pommies industrial products China would have to turn to salve trade too.
It was the First Emperor of China Shin that eradicted slave trade in China long ago. But to use evil Pommies products is bring back slave trades in China, and be like them? No way.
QUOTE=yellowarse;2322554]For all its human rights abuses against China and its climb to imperial status on the backs of the opium trade and Chinese coolies, Britain owes much more to China today than the other way round. Yet China is showing its magnanimity in not indulging in a political tit-for-tat, even inviting Britain to be a founding member of the AIIB.
Your views are too simplistic. Typical Ah Q Cina blame everything on other people.
Without the industrial revolution, there would be no electricity and you will not be communicating and expressing your views through the internet.
The industrial revolution began around 1760 and the flow of silver reversed to China's disadvantage only around 1820, when the industrial revolution was more or less completed. Financing was from joint stock companies (read South Sea Bubble, John Law, etc), bonds, reinvested profits and maybe some portion from opium. You can guarantee that no Asian triad money has been invested in Google's IPO shares? If there is a profit motive, bad people of every race and colour will take advantage of it.
Now watch and learn ...........
[video=youtube;JhF_zVrZ3RQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhF_zVrZ3RQ[/video]
Last edited:
this is the type of videos and documentary was to lied to their own descendent and to hide their truth shameful past as drug dealers in North Asia, India and SEA Singapore and Borneo.
The fucking British invaded India and colonized Calcutta go grow huge volume of opium using their industrial revolution development equipment for China market. Industrial revolution in the videos need ernomous amount of cheap money to keep it going and where the fucking Pommies can find that huge money other than drug money?
Now tell me what so grand of their achievement when you deal with drugs? What a shameful history.
Now you tell me where can a country find huge amount money needed to keep financing and funding new product development from electricity, to coal mining to iron and you name it, in the short period of the early industrial revolution.
Now you can engage in this discussion to show proof they no drug money were used in their early industrial revolution development in the 1760 period.
remember, the British Empire expanded to quick and colonized 50 countries, go wars with Australia, Canada and Americans natives require massive money to fund their conquest to claim these lands for their own.
Herein, we are talking about British empire expansion and colonized 50 countries requires massive amount of money. Only with drug money they can achieved that, what else?
http://www.academia.edu/1444383/The...nsion_of_the_British_Empire_from_1764_to_1825
http://uchicagogate.com/2015/05/26/britains-colonial-shame/
http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-drug-that-bankrolled-some-of-americas-great-dynasties/40555
The fucking British invaded India and colonized Calcutta go grow huge volume of opium using their industrial revolution development equipment for China market. Industrial revolution in the videos need ernomous amount of cheap money to keep it going and where the fucking Pommies can find that huge money other than drug money?
Now tell me what so grand of their achievement when you deal with drugs? What a shameful history.
Now you tell me where can a country find huge amount money needed to keep financing and funding new product development from electricity, to coal mining to iron and you name it, in the short period of the early industrial revolution.
Now you can engage in this discussion to show proof they no drug money were used in their early industrial revolution development in the 1760 period.
remember, the British Empire expanded to quick and colonized 50 countries, go wars with Australia, Canada and Americans natives require massive money to fund their conquest to claim these lands for their own.
Herein, we are talking about British empire expansion and colonized 50 countries requires massive amount of money. Only with drug money they can achieved that, what else?
http://www.academia.edu/1444383/The...nsion_of_the_British_Empire_from_1764_to_1825
http://uchicagogate.com/2015/05/26/britains-colonial-shame/
http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-drug-that-bankrolled-some-of-americas-great-dynasties/40555
Last edited:
What modern equipment does one need to grow opium? Pray tell.
I never said no opium money ended up financing industrial revolution. I only questioned how important that source of financing was compared with other sources such as joint stock companies, bonds, banks, etc. Besides, they sold tobacco to their own and European citizens. Just as Chinese Communist Party through state owned monopolies sold to their own citizens and used profits to finance the country's industrialisation. What's the difference?
I never said that it was grand. Neither did I attribute their achievement solely to drugs which is what you are doing. There may be a shameful element in their history but that is far from saying that opium is the entirety of their history. Are there no shameful episodes in Chinese history? If you are not blind to the truth, I am sure you will find plenty.
Now you tell me which part of banks, bonds, joint stock companies, etc do you not understand?
Now I tell you to stop putting words in the mouth of others. If you don't know how to debate properly, then please go and find any tall building and jump down from there.
Only people with simplistic view of the world will make such assumptions. They expanded quickly because of superior military equipment (cannons, rifles, iron ships, machine guns, etc) and with not inconsiderable help from nature - read small pox to which the Red Indians had no natural immunity. It is finance (of which opium may have played a part along with joint stock companies, banks and bonds and nobody can tell the exact proportions but it can be safely said that the other elements are very significant when combined) together with innovation. If drug money alone is all it takes, then Columbia will be the most powerful country in the world today stupid dumbass!
THE BOTTOM LINE IS:
1) Nobody can force you to smoke a cigarette or inhale opium. The addict is as much to blame as the trafficker.
2) It's a jungle out there and if Japan can go from technologically backward nation to a modern military power then what is it in Chinese culture that prevents China from doing the same and using military might to enforce its anti-opium laws? Let me guess - the same reasons why 70% Sinkies voted for Pee and Pee in GE2015! By the way, the Meiji Revolution was NOT peaceful, violence was involved and when it was happening the outcome was far from certain.
3) Many (not all) western ideas such as human rights and democracy are good and many Chinese traditions (not all) are nothing but useless superstitions not to mention unhygienic like stupid Cina Ah Pek sneeze like thunder in public places without covering mouth and now in Sinkieland hawker centre put pet dog on table and thinks his farking emperor Qian Long!
4) Now put aside your childish thoughts and go the way of a "shi-shi", banzai ......
[video=youtube;2BQr5nRn_Cw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BQr5nRn_Cw[/video]
Last edited:
Care to tell me what sort of chinese tradition is ah pek not covering mouth when sneeze so only chinese do it?
Also it was a shit skin that put his dog on the table not a chinese.
Unfortunately chinese dogs won't like this. Actually why there so many chinese ppl so ashamed of their race and rather be chinese dogs?
sometimes i think theres a hidden kkk inside us,a closet anti chink supremacist and we like to feel superior to our fellow coolies and farmers,just like how indians love their caste system.
The same sort of tradition as spitting and clearing throat loudly in public. Of course not only Chinese do it, same as not only Indians allow their children to behave badly in public. However, if I hear a sneeze like thunder, 7 times out of 10 it is a Chinese Ah Pek and 2 times it is a young or middle aged Cina male or even Ah Soh. Therefore, just like I am more likely to go short or long when a confluence of certain technical factors (researched beforehand in calm conditions) appear on the right side of the screen, not because I am 100% sure but because the probabilities favour one outcome more than the other, I will avoid - 1) Cina Ah Pek; 2) dress like Ah Beng (if dress and look like Ah Tiong I will run for my life); 3) in those type of places where any Tom, Dick or Harry can enter (like cheap hawker centres); etc. Those are my "technical analysis" as far as avoiding a particular type of human irritant is concerned. It is nothing racial or personal.
Checked the relevant thread and noted that it was a shit skin in blue T-shirt. Surprised that nobody corrected me instantly and "numero uno" appeared to have made the same mistake. However, I still believe that profiling (of which race can be one of the criteria without need to be concerned about political correctness) is the way to go. All I want to achieve through such profiling is to be able to go about my business (such as going from point A to B by public transport, read newspaper in a public library, etc) without being irritated by other human beings. There is no other higher or sinister purpose.
I don't know what you're driving at on the first instance when i asked you what does clearing one's throat or sneezing loudly have to do with chinese tradition. your observations on dressing style certainly has no correlation to chinese traditions.
On placing the dog on the table it was a shit skin like i told you and you checked and found out it's a skin so it's a shit skin tradition to place the dog on the table right? The funny thing is instead of admitting your mistake and say oh i'm wrong you totally tried to dismiss it and go oh i'm wrong opps my bad for example but wrote another bunch of irrelevant stuff. So it's a shit skin tradition to place dog on table right?
If you are trying to explain your chinese dogginess how can you be an anti chinese supremacist when you are chinese yourself? That by itself is oxy moronic.
What I am driving at is that certain types of irritating behaviour are more likely to be commited by Chinese Ah Peks than other types of humans. Whether it is called "tradition" or whatever crap is besides the point. Dressing style is another criteria used in profiling in addition to race. It would fall under the rubric of "social class" together with other factors such as venue. Of course, all of these are politically incorrect but I don't care!
One shitskin placing a dog on a table does not a tradition make. Nine Cina Ah Peks sneezing like thunder in public places makes one want to avoid them regardless of the root cause of such behaviour or the danger that some moron concerned with political correctness will instinctively shout racist nor whether it can be properly labelled a tradition or not. Able to appreciate the difference?
Similar threads
